I'm a Mac user since Tiger, and have avidly followed the company since 1977, but I went with Android phones during a bit of a budget crunch and they do everything I really need, so I've stayed with what I know - my phone's rugged, has a great screen and virtually never crashes.
But I'd still like to wring iOS out and see the differences using apps close up day by day over an extended period to see if I really might want to switch. And be able to participate in the occasional Face Time, etc. So gonna wait 'til I can pick up a refurb for about a buck and a half and finally start playing.
Secondarily, with FaceTime and fb Messenger, etc., it is kind of like having a poor man's phone as long as you're near a WiFi hot spot without a monthly carrier bill of any kind, a use case which might be pretty useful for cash-strapped folk.
I really like the iPod Touch when I just want to listen to music and don’t want the bulk or weight of the newer iPhone models. The only concern I have with the past two generations of iPod Touch is their propensity to get destroyed by bulging batteries. I still have an iPod Touch 2G and an iPod Touch 4G and both work fine. However, I’ve had both the 5G and 6G iPod Touch and both suffered from bulging batteries and popped screens. I’m still using the replacement 6G Touch but kind of expect it to pop at some point.
The iPod Touch is really a nostalgic product for Apple. This is both good and bad. Everyone likes nostalgia, it’s comfort food for the soul. But it’s also a dead end. I believe that Apple should use the iPod Touch more strategically. Why not use iPod Touch in connection with Apple Music in a similar way that Amazon Whispersync works with Kindle? Perhaps Apple could sell iPod Touch + Apple Music bundles. Or an iPod Touch bundled with a collection of games. It just seems like iPod Touch is stuck in a Way-Back Machine time warp and Apple isn’t really trying to capture the services angle. A new processor and more storage options is okay, but way too inside the box.
Well, in my case I have split my usage across three devices:
1. iPhone => Calls, Email, Calendaring primarily focussed on Work with "out and about" ancillary applications like Banking etc. 2. iPad => Work Documents, Presentations and Spreadsheets (View and Edit) along with Email. News, Magazines, Books for reading and Video. With some ancillary applications like Games, Social Media etc. 3. iPod Touch => Audio Services. iTunes Library and Podcasts.
This division has been working well for some time and I know at some point 1 & 3 might end up merging but right now I like keeping them seperate.
I also travel a lot for work so it's nice to have my full music library with me when I'm away for months at a time and for it to be in a nice small form factor which I can easily deal with. It's also nice to know I can listen to music or watch videos until the battery is flat and still have a phone with a full charge.
So, the update for me is a storage update (and the battery is starting to fail on the old one) which will allow me to reinstate some artists which I had had to pull for storage limitations. I'd love to see a 512GB or higher version but it is what it is.
The iPod Touch could’ve (should’ve?) been the new handheld gaming machine had Apple “got” gaming when that category took off in the App Store. Alas…
It is a handheld gaming machine already. In fact, the iPhone/iPod Touch are world’s most popular handheld gaming machines. The 32GB one is probably fine for gaming, and if you’re using it as more of a music device, you’re either paying for more storage or you’re streaming Apple Music/Spotify et al via Wi-Fi or a tethered connection from your iPhone. In short, Apple knows perfectly well what they’re doing.
Is it possible to attach a lightning hard drive to hold more music to play through iTunes? Asking for a friend.
I haven’t had a chance to test it, but it’s certainly possible to add music to the local storage that way — and it’s certainly possible to use another music player app to play music from an attached Lightning drive or wireless local HD, so I’m gonna say “yes with a little finagling.”
Apple should have made the base model 64Gb for $199.
But, of course Tim and his cronies won't because they know 64Gb is the sweet spot everyone wants. Get the user to pay $100 more for 128Gb. Milkers.
Good lord, the whining. Remind me never to tell you about my first MP3 player — the Diamond Rio. it had 32MB of storage. Yup, that’s about 30 mins of 128kbs music. It was $200 (edit: so about $315 today.)
Apple should have made the base model 64Gb for $199.
But, of course Tim and his cronies won't because they know 64Gb is the sweet spot everyone wants. Get the user to pay $100 more for 128Gb. Milkers.
Good lord, the whining. Remind me never to tell you about my first MP3 player — the Diamond Rio. it had 32MB of storage. Yup, that’s about 30 mins of 128kbs music. It was $200 (edit: so about $315 today.)
That was 20 years ago! It was a very new technology, so I would expect to pay premium. iPod touch is pretty standard now (in fact it's pretty old hat now).
The fact that the Kool-Aiders refuse to acknowledge that Apple purposely hobbles the low end model and makes the next option 50% more expensive to milk users never ceases to amaze me.
The logical progression is to double the memory at each price step. It should be 64, 128, 256. But, Apple purposely choses 32->128 because they know that 32Gb will be annoying enough to make users take the leap to 128GB and pay the extra $100.
In fact, Apple actually penalizes the low end user for making that choice via their price structure. Let's say the base electronics cost of the Touch to the user is $100. Leaving the rest for memory cost… So $100 / 32, means you paying $3.13 per GB for the low end. But, $200 / 128 is $1.56 per GB for the middle tier. Now, if Apple gave 64Gb on the low end it would be $100 / 64Gb which is also $1.56.
Hmmmm... Seems like Apple could easily give us 64Gb for the low end but chooses not to because they love to milk.
Kudo’s to Joni for further pushing the envelope in developing a contemporary design language (12 years ago)
If you’re expecting them to change it for change’s sake, or to alleviate your boredom, you’ll always be disappointed with Apple.
Then why the modern smallbezel iPad design - an error or exception of the Rule ?
There are reasons to change a product, but it's in the pursuit of improvement, not change for change's sake. In the case of the new iPad Pro, they implemented FaceID so they were able to remove the chin and make the bezels smaller. That is functional, not change for change's sake.
Kudo’s to Joni for further pushing the envelope in developing a contemporary design language (12 years ago)
If you’re expecting them to change it for change’s sake, or to alleviate your boredom, you’ll always be disappointed with Apple.
By that metric we'd still be on the plastic iMac G4 design.
Incorrect. You're confusing functional improvement for change for change's sake. The OP was criticizing the fact that the iPod Touch is similar in design for 12 years. As if they should have re-designed it not for the job to be done, but to make it different for the sake of being different.
Apple should have made the base model 64Gb for $199.
But, of course Tim and his cronies won't because they know 64Gb is the sweet spot everyone wants. Get the user to pay $100 more for 128Gb. Milkers.
Good lord, the whining. Remind me never to tell you about my first MP3 player — the Diamond Rio. it had 32MB of storage. Yup, that’s about 30 mins of 128kbs music. It was $200 (edit: so about $315 today.)
That was 20 years ago! It was a very new technology, so I would expect to pay premium. iPod touch is pretty standard now (in fact it's pretty old hat now).
The fact that the Kool-Aiders refuse to acknowledge that Apple purposely hobbles the low end model and makes the next option 50% more expensive to milk users never ceases to amaze me.
The logical progression is to double the memory at each price step. It should be 64, 128, 256. But, Apple purposely choses 32->128 because they know that 32Gb will be annoying enough to make users take the leap to 128GB and pay the extra $100.
In fact, Apple actually penalizes the low end user for making that choice via their price structure. Let's say the base electronics cost of the Touch to the user is $100. Leaving the rest for memory cost… So $100 / 32, means you paying $3.13 per GB for the low end. But, $200 / 128 is $1.56 per GB for the middle tier. Now, if Apple gave 64Gb on the low end it would be $100 / 64Gb which is also $1.56.
Hmmmm... Seems like Apple could easily give us 64Gb for the low end but chooses not to because they love to milk.
By what authority do you claim to say what is the logical progression for product development? I could flip your script and say OK, if doubling then it should have been 32, 64, 128 -- but instead they were generous and quadrupled on the middle model as a bonus.
The rest of your explanation for why you should get something for less than the seller is selling it for, is completely irrelevant. We aren't paying a price based on component costs. The iPhone cost more than the sum of its parts. Part of that price delta is to cover non-component costs, like R&D, infrastructure, facilities, marketing, etc. And part of it is based on the marketplace -- value is determined by what people are willing to pay. Do you complain about items on eBay not being priced based on materials cost, but instead based on what people are willing to pay? LOL that would be absurd.
You don't get to set the prices. You do get to set what you are willing to pay. This is the basis of value exchange and commerce.
The fact that the Kool-Aiders refuse to acknowledge that Apple purposely hobbles the low end model and makes the next option 50% more expensive to milk users never ceases to amaze me.
The logical progression is to double the memory at each price step. It should be 64, 128, 256. But, Apple purposely choses 32->128 because they know that 32Gb will be annoying enough to make users take the leap to 128GB and pay the extra $100.
In fact, Apple actually penalizes the low end user for making that choice via their price structure.
Well, either the low end model is an appropriate model for your needs at the price for which it's being offered, or it's not. There is no crippling or other nefarious activity. Either it's worth your money or don't buy it. There is no penalty.
And as for a "logical progression", that does not apply to most product pricing in any industry. A 12-pack of beer is not typically double what a 6-pack is. And it's not a conspiracy if they don't offer a 9-pack.
Comments
I'm a Mac user since Tiger, and have avidly followed the company since 1977, but I went with Android phones during a bit of a budget crunch and they do everything I really need, so I've stayed with what I know - my phone's rugged, has a great screen and virtually never crashes.
But I'd still like to wring iOS out and see the differences using apps close up day by day over an extended period to see if I really might want to switch. And be able to participate in the occasional Face Time, etc. So gonna wait 'til I can pick up a refurb for about a buck and a half and finally start playing.
Secondarily, with FaceTime and fb Messenger, etc., it is kind of like having a poor man's phone as long as you're near a WiFi hot spot without a monthly carrier bill of any kind, a use case which might be pretty useful for cash-strapped folk.
I've had a few, but I absolutely love my second-gen iPod Nano. Still use it regularly and will be sad when it finally dies.
1. iPhone => Calls, Email, Calendaring primarily focussed on Work with "out and about" ancillary applications like Banking etc.
2. iPad => Work Documents, Presentations and Spreadsheets (View and Edit) along with Email. News, Magazines, Books for reading and Video. With some ancillary applications like Games, Social Media etc.
3. iPod Touch => Audio Services. iTunes Library and Podcasts.
This division has been working well for some time and I know at some point 1 & 3 might end up merging but right now I like keeping them seperate.
I also travel a lot for work so it's nice to have my full music library with me when I'm away for months at a time and for it to be in a nice small form factor which I can easily deal with. It's also nice to know I can listen to music or watch videos until the battery is flat and still have a phone with a full charge.
So, the update for me is a storage update (and the battery is starting to fail on the old one) which will allow me to reinstate some artists which I had had to pull for storage limitations. I'd love to see a 512GB or higher version but it is what it is.
One day it will make sense.
By what authority do you claim to say what is the logical progression for product development? I could flip your script and say OK, if doubling then it should have been 32, 64, 128 -- but instead they were generous and quadrupled on the middle model as a bonus.
The rest of your explanation for why you should get something for less than the seller is selling it for, is completely irrelevant. We aren't paying a price based on component costs. The iPhone cost more than the sum of its parts. Part of that price delta is to cover non-component costs, like R&D, infrastructure, facilities, marketing, etc. And part of it is based on the marketplace -- value is determined by what people are willing to pay. Do you complain about items on eBay not being priced based on materials cost, but instead based on what people are willing to pay? LOL that would be absurd.
You don't get to set the prices. You do get to set what you are willing to pay. This is the basis of value exchange and commerce.
And as for a "logical progression", that does not apply to most product pricing in any industry. A 12-pack of beer is not typically double what a 6-pack is. And it's not a conspiracy if they don't offer a 9-pack.